 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"clipka" <nomail@nomail> schreef in bericht
news:web.4a71e6a5cabb4647a13874630@news.povray.org...
>
> So yes, I'm quite confident it will be released as an experimental feature
> in
> beta 34.
>
> Looking forward to seeing what all you guys out there will make of it.
>
>
Excellent!! Clipka rules!! :-)
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> A room with curtains and other semi-transparent thingumajigs illuminated from
> behind.
>
> This shot uses some brand-new experimental POV-Ray 3.7 beta code...
Wow! Both examples are beautiful. What a great addition this would make to
POV-Ray.
Does your code *depend* on using radiosity (and/or photons), or is it
separate from those?
Ken
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Kenneth" <kdw### [at] earthlink net> wrote:
> Wow! Both examples are beautiful. What a great addition this would make to
> POV-Ray.
Yes, I'm a bit surprised, too, how much realistic feel it adds.
> Does your code *depend* on using radiosity (and/or photons), or is it
> separate from those?
As for photons, there's no need at all to use those - I just included them to
verify that the patch handles them properly.
Neither does the code strictly need radiosity: For the code, that's just another
way of illuminating the back side of a surface. However, it's really the
combination of the new code with radiosity that adds the most "Wow!" to the
image.
For instance, that blurry see-through effect seen in those curved plastic
thingumajigs (most prominently in the left one) is entirely radiosity-based.
Without radiosity, all you really get is those sharp shadows (well, smooth ones
when using area lights) cast from behind, as prominently demonstrated on the
curtains.
Without radiosity, everything in this shot would also be pitch-dark, except for
the patches on the curtains, floor and wall receiving direct sunlight.
(To avoid any misunderstanding: The code does not require a radiosity-only-lit
scene for best effect; in fact this scene uses a conventional area light as its
primary light source. But radiosity is needed for some of the secondary effects
you see.)
Still there may well be cases when the patch will do something good in
non-radiosity scenes.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Awesome! ...I tried to fake such effect with the SDL for years, without
success of course. It's incredible that you can come up with a patch for it
so quickly...
--
Jaime
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> Seems to make some decent fake subsurface scattering as well.
>
> The left one is a backlit-only 100% white sphere, with a smaller sphere of the
> desired color embedded inside; radiosity was set to 3 recursions.
so little balls you have
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jaime Vives Piqueres <jai### [at] ignoranciaorg> wrote:
> Awesome! ...I tried to fake such effect with the SDL for years, without
> success of course. It's incredible that you can come up with a patch for it
> so quickly...
I find it more incredible that nobody ever bothered to invest the time before,
given how easy it turned out to be ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"alphaQuad" <alp### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:
> so little balls you have
Welcome back. Wondered how long it would take you to show up again, and what
your first glorious contribution to the world of raytracing would then be.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Jaime Vives Piqueres <jai### [at] ignoranciaorg> wrote:
>> Awesome! ...I tried to fake such effect with the SDL for years, without
>> success of course. It's incredible that you can come up with a patch for it
>> so quickly...
>
> I find it more incredible that nobody ever bothered to invest the time before,
> given how easy it turned out to be ;)
>
>
It turned out easy once you put yourself into doing it.
Maybe others got frighten by some appearent or supposed dificulty.
Maybe others just "assumed" it was not possible.
Maybe somebody had a go at it, but used the wrong aproach and ended up
with some over-complicated and very ineffecient code. Hit a dead end and
renounced.
Alain
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka escreveu:
> "alphaQuad" <alp### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:
>> so little balls you have
>
> Welcome back. Wondered how long it would take you to show up again, and what
> your first glorious contribution to the world of raytracing would then be.
bwahahah
BTW, friggin' excellent patch!
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Alain escreveu:
>> Jaime Vives Piqueres <jai### [at] ignoranciaorg> wrote:
>>> Awesome! ...I tried to fake such effect with the SDL for years, without
>>> success of course. It's incredible that you can come up with a patch
>>> for it
>>> so quickly...
>>
>> I find it more incredible that nobody ever bothered to invest the time
>> before,
>> given how easy it turned out to be ;)
>>
>>
>
> It turned out easy once you put yourself into doing it.
>
> Maybe others got frighten by some appearent or supposed dificulty.
> Maybe others just "assumed" it was not possible.
> Maybe somebody had a go at it, but used the wrong aproach and ended up
> with some over-complicated and very ineffecient code. Hit a dead end and
> renounced.
It's difficult for an average programmer to even begin tinkering with
code that depends on specialized computer graphics algorithms with
complex math inside. Same for videogame emulation. I believe it's a
thing for very few people with both sufficient knowledge, time and
passion for it, indeed.
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
